Legal Opinion

Chew v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1926No. Appeal 184PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

The plaintiff in the court below while engaged as an employe of the City of Philadelphia in repairing an asphalt street was struck and injured by a trolley car operated by an employe of the defendant company and recovered a verdict for his damages. Counsel for defendant, contending that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the motorman to justify the submission of the case to the jury and that the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries was his own negligence, presented a point for binding instructions, which the learned trial judge refused…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dalmas v. KembleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  2. Zandt v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  3. Marland v. Pittsb. & L. E. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1889
  4. Hugo v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  5. Bardis v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
  2. Rothweiler v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  3. Kilgallen v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Bradley v. RhodesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  5. James v. Columbia County Agricultural, Horticultural & Mechanical Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API